Seeking Alpha

White House mulls massive reduction in power emissions

  • The White House is considering forcing power plants to cut carbon emissions by 25% over a 15-year period, Bloomberg reports.
  • The problem is that owners can only cut so much of a facility's emissions by increasing efficiency, so a lot of the reduction could have to come by "going outside the fence," such as by deepening the use of renewable energy, improving grid efficiency and encouraging customers to use less electricity.
  • Trying to compel operators to rely on such external measures could run afoul of what the government is allowed to do under the Clean Air Act.
  • ETFs: KOL, XLU, IDU, VPU, RYU, PUI, UPW, FXU, SDP, PSCU, FUTY, UTLT
  • Coal Tickers: PCXCQ, BTU, WLT, CNX, ACI, ANR, JRCC, YZC, ARLP, AHGP, NRP, PVR, PVG, PVA, OXF, CLD, WLB, RNO
  • Utilities: ED, POM, PEG, FE, NST, UTL, ETR, EXC, D, NU, PCG, DUK
Comments (126)
  • DeepValueLover
    , contributor
    Comments (8661) | Send Message
     
    I wonder how Obama's thinking would be different if he had actually ran a business and had the responsibility of making payroll each week.
    16 May, 05:17 AM Reply Like
  • SteveSzabo
    , contributor
    Comments (32) | Send Message
     
    Wind and Large Scale Solar are now cheaper than coal. Solar by 2 cents / kWh and wind by 3 cents / kWh. So why would we want to burn more expensive coal, which costs will only go higher, while the renewables continue to cheaper. The result of moving quicker toward clean sustainable fuel source, is that we create more jobs and work toward a cleaner environment.
    16 May, 09:46 AM Reply Like
  • SteveSzabo
    , contributor
    Comments (32) | Send Message
     
    We pay our electric provide 7.2 cents / kWh who's generation is 80% . Here's an example of whats happening around the country.
    http://bit.ly/1gaK0X2
    16 May, 10:00 AM Reply Like
  • SteveSzabo
    , contributor
    Comments (32) | Send Message
     
    provider and 80% coal sorry for the typo
    16 May, 10:02 AM Reply Like
  • DevilDog85
    , contributor
    Comments (266) | Send Message
     
    Nonsense! Solar is not cheaper than coal. Every argument you greenies make is based on lies. You fear reality. The sky is not falling.
    16 May, 10:12 AM Reply Like
  • Mike Maher
    , contributor
    Comments (2610) | Send Message
     
    That price for solar is ridiculously low - I'd like to see what the annual price escalations of that contract are. The 30% ITC also likely helps them make that project feasible, but its not very profitable.

     

    The problem with wind and solar is that, even if they were free to build, maintain, and operate, you still need nuclear, coal, nat gas, and hydro for baseload power. You have to be able to turn things on and off, and no one can make the sun shine or the wind blow.
    16 May, 10:29 AM Reply Like
  • SteveSzabo
    , contributor
    Comments (32) | Send Message
     
    Baseload thermal energy doesn't work well with renewables, Nimble nat gas generators do work well. One renewable baseload resource is geothermal, which is viable in the western US, but right now the cost is high and more research needs to be done. Please remember when auto's first came out you needed to hand crank them to get started......
    16 May, 11:40 AM Reply Like
  • ramsfan1
    , contributor
    Comments (3) | Send Message
     
    Show me the numbers...How many federal and state subsidies are in your numbers?
    16 May, 12:26 PM Reply Like
  • maudie
    , contributor
    Comments (477) | Send Message
     
    So end the subsidies, then we'll talk.

     

    http://onforb.es/RIoWvG

     

    http://bit.ly/RIoWvK
    16 May, 12:33 PM Reply Like
  • tiger8896
    , contributor
    Comments (628) | Send Message
     
    No the sky is not falling but ice is melting all over the world. Get with it climate change is a reality and coal is a dirty way to produce electric power. Can't argue with the benefits of creating energy with solar and wind over coal.
    16 May, 12:36 PM Reply Like
  • smkt848
    , contributor
    Comments (7) | Send Message
     
    very wise and "right on the money" comment! he doesn't have a clue!!! hasn't, doesn't and never will.....foolish he's forcing one of our greatest natural resources out of the country to other countries, so they can burn PRB coal and blow emissions our way....he doesn't get it, nor does Gina McCarthy and EPA. It's been an ugly and foolish attempt by both to administer sox and nox, with nothing but headaches, confusion and wasted efforts by all parties. more good would have come out of emissions control if they made partial reductions, etc versus unattainable steep and very strict regulations. Yuck!!! another error alongside this president and his administration. UGLY!
    16 May, 05:29 PM Reply Like
  • smkt848
    , contributor
    Comments (7) | Send Message
     
    one other thing he doesn't realize is that cheap natural gas is no producing lower bills......rather every single bill i have got in past 12-24 months has been higher. he's forced the hand....of utilities to raise rates....to cover treatment costs....it's the big, bad and the ugly! not good!!
    16 May, 05:31 PM Reply Like
  • taxman100
    , contributor
    Comments (297) | Send Message
     
    Yep - my electric rates in Ohio has increased by about 40% since this joker took office. We are also still living with the fall-out from the green energy requirements that the last Democratic governor passed. In Ohio we have gone from some of the lowest rates in the country to rates that are causing businesses to leave the State.

     

    When I retire, I'm following the out of Ohio as well.

     

    The Statists and the environmental wackos who live on the government teat are trying to sell all of this as saving us money.
    16 May, 05:40 PM Reply Like
  • Red Raider
    , contributor
    Comments (223) | Send Message
     
    Steve,

     

    I think you are missing something. Wind and solar are not actually cheaper than coal. Not even close. Check out the capacity factor of these renewable units. One advantage they do have is the tax credit that makes it possible to operate them. Another is their 25% to 30% average annual capacity factor. They are not likely to wear out because of overuse!

     

    Best you look into the economics of power generation. Seems that renewables are like religion...must have faith.
    And religion is OK if you don't force it on me. I don't understand why I have to pay the bill for someone else' religion.
    16 May, 11:57 PM Reply Like
  • Red Raider
    , contributor
    Comments (223) | Send Message
     
    Tiger,

     

    Let's talk after you sell the concept in China, India, Malaysia, Africa, etc. Even the green Germans are building coal plants.

     

    There is no factual argument, and the green religion may satisfy the believers...but hopefully the constitution will prevail, and the Feds will not be allowed to establish a new state religion. Even if it is green.
    17 May, 12:07 AM Reply Like
  • Red Raider
    , contributor
    Comments (223) | Send Message
     
    Wait till they finish condemning coal, that's when the rates will really go up.
    17 May, 12:11 AM Reply Like
  • Blue Horshoe love Anacot Steel
    , contributor
    Comments (284) | Send Message
     
    You have to get with it. Read some facts. world temp has not changed in almost 2 decades.
    19 May, 01:46 AM Reply Like
  • blake303
    , contributor
    Comments (78) | Send Message
     
    http://1.usa.gov/14kdmIe
    19 May, 12:42 PM Reply Like
  • Ford289HiPo
    , contributor
    Comments (528) | Send Message
     
    ""Get with it climate change is a reality ~""

     

    The climate has been changing for 4 billion years and nothing is going to stop that. Get with the program.
    19 May, 04:25 PM Reply Like
  • coelacanth10
    , contributor
    Comments (81) | Send Message
     
    Climate change is a reality only if you are speaking in politicospeak. Science has very little to do with your conclusions. Coal is black and natural gas is colorless, but that doesn't mean that one source is highly polluting and the other pristine. There are plenty of ways to make coal burn clean. Check out Fueltek (FTEK) for one example.
    An intelligent and successful energy policy, which the USA never has had, would be to incorporate all sources of energy available including nuclear and coal into the mix, according to the efficiency and cost of the fuel provided. Let the costs dictate what sources to draw from, and let free markets determine which sources dominate. Consumers should be allowed to benefit from that mix.
    For a congress to declare that carbon dioxide is a pollutant shows one the mental capacity of our leaders in general. For an administration to determine that oil,gas, and coal are unacceptable sources of energy for the American public is a ridiculous conclusion. For the Democratic Party in power to decide that these sources are going to disappear any time in the next 500 years is ludicrous. For a President to decide unilaterally that solar and wind energy should dominate this mix makes no sense at all-he's not that bright a bulb.
    20 May, 05:05 PM Reply Like
  • coelacanth10
    , contributor
    Comments (81) | Send Message
     
    How can you even begin to accept these numbers, and what is their significance? It can be easily determine that we cannot accurately predict the weather at any one spot on earth for more than about 5 days. How are we able to predict global changes in temperature decades in the future? It cannot be done currently. The models have failed miserably because there are too many variables included, their interaction is not well understood, and other unknown elements have not been included.
    20 May, 05:16 PM Reply Like
  • blake303
    , contributor
    Comments (78) | Send Message
     
    coelacanth - Thermometers are accurate and reliable. I accept their readings and the trend is clear. Prediction is another story, but is idiotic to believe that dumping billions of tons of CO2 (not to mention other pollutants) into the atmosphere will not have consequences. I applaud those willing to investigate potential effects and solutions, despite constant accusations that their body of work is simply a hoax. Right wing ideologues lost their a$$ in coal stocks. We get it, but the blame lies with coal executives that made debt-financed acquisitions at the top of the market and their lack of foresight with regard to the impact of horizontal fracking. It's easier to make scapegoats out of scientists and the president than to admit a dumb investment.
    20 May, 06:20 PM Reply Like
  • Ford289HiPo
    , contributor
    Comments (528) | Send Message
     
    Blake303 - I'll ask you this - where did all the CO2 on the planet originally come from?
    Was it always here? Did it come from outer space?

     

    "Right wing ideologues lost their a$$ in coal stocks. "
    Thankfully, I'm an independent and made money on coal stocks.
    BTW- where do you think that energy source is being shipped to?
    A- China.
    21 May, 10:58 AM Reply Like
  • blake303
    , contributor
    Comments (78) | Send Message
     
    Ford289HiPo - The building blocks of CO2 have been here all along. High school chemistry lesson: C02 is a byproduct of hydrocarbon combustion. Burning coal (and any other fossil fuel) releases C02 into the atmosphere.

     

    Only 4% of Chinese thermal coal imports come from the US. Shipping US thermal coal to China is not profitable (at current prices at least), so that coal is not shipped to China as you suggest. Australia, Indonesia, Russia & S. Africa account for 92% of Chinese thermal imports. The only US-listed coal company with substantial exposure to Chinese utilities is BTU because they have large operations in Australia. Met coal is a different story, but we aren't talking about met coal.
    21 May, 11:29 AM Reply Like
  • Ford289HiPo
    , contributor
    Comments (528) | Send Message
     
    Since you admit that the CO2 has been here all along, that means that that there is no new CO2 being produced, hence, it's natural.

     

    Why not complain about a lack of carbon sinks (i.e.plants) caused by deforestation of the Amazon?

     

    Elementary school lesson - plants take in CO2 and give off O2. Happy plants can respire.

     

    BTW- EPA also lists water vapor as a greenhouse gas.

     

    http://1.usa.gov/1g2nngE

     

    http://1.usa.gov/RVpn61

     

    Darnit! DOWN WITH ATMOSPHERIC WATER VAPOR!
    21 May, 05:59 PM Reply Like
  • ephud
    , contributor
    Comments (2458) | Send Message
     
    Ford289HiPro

     

    "Since you admit that the CO2 has been here all along, that means that that there is no new CO2 being produced, hence, it's natural"

     

    You can't be serious.
    21 May, 06:34 PM Reply Like
  • Blue Horshoe love Anacot Steel
    , contributor
    Comments (284) | Send Message
     
    ephud, why be insulting?
    ford has a point.

     

    CO2 makes up .03 percent of our atmosphere. That's right, around 1/33 of a single percent! It has been pointed out by scientists and the latest U.N. report that slight increases can be good for crop productivity and can reduce starvation. But reducing starvation is not a priority for environuts because they all want to reduce the world population.
    22 May, 09:19 AM Reply Like
  • ephud
    , contributor
    Comments (2458) | Send Message
     
    Blue Horshoe

     

    You missed my point. New CO2 is being produced each time you exhale.
    22 May, 10:45 AM Reply Like
  • Blue Horshoe love Anacot Steel
    , contributor
    Comments (284) | Send Message
     
    I know that's supposed to be an insult but I think you were supposed to say "hot air" or something else. You continue to reaffirm what I have always assumed about liberal progressives.
    22 May, 10:59 AM Reply Like
  • ephud
    , contributor
    Comments (2458) | Send Message
     
    Blue Horshoe

     

    I have no idea what you're talking about and liberal progressive is the absolute last term I would use to describe myself. The point was that making utterly false claims, like there is no new CO2 being created, does nothing to advance one's cause. It's being created and consumed continuously.
    22 May, 11:18 AM Reply Like
  • Ford289HiPo
    , contributor
    Comments (528) | Send Message
     
    " You can't be serious. "

     

    I am serious. At least you didn't call me "Shirley"
    23 May, 01:04 PM Reply Like
  • Ford289HiPo
    , contributor
    Comments (528) | Send Message
     
    "It's being created and consumed continuously. "

     

    Isn't it remarkable how those rotating cycles work?
    23 May, 01:05 PM Reply Like
  • ephud
    , contributor
    Comments (2458) | Send Message
     
    Ford

     

    "Isn't it remarkable how those rotating cycles work?"

     

    Yes it is and it means that your statement that there is no new CO2 being produced was completely wrong.
    23 May, 01:21 PM Reply Like
  • Blue Horshoe love Anacot Steel
    , contributor
    Comments (284) | Send Message
     
    ephud, I misunderstood your comment, but I still have to agree with ford here. Follow his logic. As we believe fossil fuels were created by decaying organic matter and then buried in the ground, where did the carbon in the fossil fuels buried in the ground come from?
    Answer: CO2 that was converted to organic matter.

     

    Same thing with humans exhaling CO2. The C that is added to O2 in cell respiration comes from processing of glucose which was originally pulled from the atmosphere by living plants. Burning fossil fuels simply brings the Earth's balance of carbon dioxide back to a state of prehistoric times. However, the Earth in its perfect design has mechanisms in place to reduce CO2 through increased photosynthesis which results in greater crop yields and more green things.

     

    So it appears to me that Ford is right we are not creating more CO2 just moving it around.
    23 May, 03:12 PM Reply Like
  • Ford289HiPo
    , contributor
    Comments (528) | Send Message
     
    Thank you, Blue Horshoe love Anacot Steel

     

    I couldn't have said it better myself.
    23 May, 04:31 PM Reply Like
  • ephud
    , contributor
    Comments (2458) | Send Message
     
    Blue Horse Shoe

     

    If that were the case then what was the state of things before the first living cell? And where did the CO2 come from on Venus? Carbon is an element and so is oxygen. Put the two together and you have CO2 without the need for biological activity. It can be created without any life present and broken down as well.

     

    Before we turn this into an argument I want to be clear, I too believe the earth probably has self regulating mechanisms that will bring things back into balance, whatever that may be. My PhD Chemist friend tells me there are much stronger greenhouse gases than CO2 and man made global warming is not well supported by the science. Scientists know that but if you want funding then you believe in it, science or no science.
    23 May, 09:02 PM Reply Like
  • TexasPete
    , contributor
    Comments (13) | Send Message
     
    Support your facts in detail, or apologize before Seekingalpha corrects your statements.
    24 May, 12:31 AM Reply Like
  • ephud
    , contributor
    Comments (2458) | Send Message
     
    TexasPete

     

    There are many posts above yours. You didn't include a name or a quote. How would anyone know who you are posting to?
    24 May, 01:03 AM Reply Like
  • benitus
    , contributor
    Comments (1960) | Send Message
     
    The nonsense never seems to stop coming out of the WH. It's shameful and pathetic, as if they don't have any ideas at all, whether to improve the economy, create jobs or fix the problems and damage that they have caused to our country. It seems that they're trying to outdo each other in the WH with new stuff just for the sake of change, as if to distract the rest of the country from focusing on the problems they have done to us, e.g. letting 36,000 criminals on the street just because they're illegals. Where is Robocop??
    16 May, 07:05 AM Reply Like
  • User 344235
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
     
    Do you also think the entire world scientific community is either incompetent or a bunch of liars regarding climate change? This is why he is doing this. If we had enough brains to listen to the people that have been warning us for 30 years! that CC was coming we would not be in this mess.
    16 May, 09:05 AM Reply Like
  • Blue Horshoe love Anacot Steel
    , contributor
    Comments (284) | Send Message
     
    check your facts. the "entire world scientific community" does not believe in AGW. It is a portion of the tiny community of the activist and university grant funded climate scientists. Those that disagree get bullied and pushed out. To those of us that are really following the debate closely, we are aware of all of this. The casual observer may not pick up on this. here are 2 articles written in the last 24 hours that will give you some insight. http://thetim.es/1gaLAs1
    http://bit.ly/1gaLxMR
    16 May, 10:16 AM Reply Like
  • DevilDog85
    , contributor
    Comments (266) | Send Message
     
    Brainless, science is not settled. The earth temp. has not increased for 15 years. Your goal is to ban hydrocarbons worldwide, and that is not going to happen, Chumley. And scientist after scientist who expose your lies say they are being threatened by speaking out. Progressives, Communists, Nazis, all the same. Tyrants!!!
    16 May, 10:16 AM Reply Like
  • Blue Horshoe love Anacot Steel
    , contributor
    Comments (284) | Send Message
     
    If the science is on their side, why do they cover up and distort facts that disagree with the desired conclusion? What the climate alarmists are doing is NOT SCIENCE. Science involves testing models, releasing all relevant data (whether helpful or not) and open scientific debate. Please educate yourself. It is so frustrating that so many people can be so ignorant about this.
    16 May, 10:19 AM Reply Like
  • DevilDog85
    , contributor
    Comments (266) | Send Message
     
    "The entire world scientific community." Look what this guy or gal wrote. All scientists think alike and are in lock step? Something is wrong with you.
    16 May, 10:20 AM Reply Like
  • Heinz Doofenshmirtz
    , contributor
    Comments (273) | Send Message
     
    "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."

     

    Richard Feynman

     

    But, of course, Global Cooling, no, make that Global Warming, no make that Climate Change, no make that Climate Invariance is different.

     

    It turns out that scientists can fall victim to tribalism just like any other humans. Especially when they stop being skeptical, which is integral to the scientific process.

     

    http://dailym.ai/RIetAG

     

    http://bit.ly/RIetAH
    16 May, 10:59 AM Reply Like
  • SteveSzabo
    , contributor
    Comments (32) | Send Message
     
    Right on !!!!!
    16 May, 11:41 AM Reply Like
  • billknowsall
    , contributor
    Comments (267) | Send Message
     
    You are a bit loose with your facts. I note that you now call this "climate change". What happened to global warming? Incidently, I have been hearing since the early 70's (40+ years) that the sky is falling. Stop watching ABC and read some of the links given you. The mess that you refer to is indeed manmade- by your leftie buddies!
    16 May, 12:22 PM Reply Like
  • blake303
    , contributor
    Comments (78) | Send Message
     
    "Progressives, Communists, Nazis, all the same."

     

    Gotta love a dumb teabagger that believes he has credibility after dropping the Nazi comparison. Thanks for the laugh.
    16 May, 12:45 PM Reply Like
  • ephud
    , contributor
    Comments (2458) | Send Message
     
    User344235

     

    The "entire world scientific community" is not in agreement on this matter. Where in the world did you get that absurd statistic? Furthermore, 30 years ago they were warning us about the coming ice age. While the earth -appears- to be warming, the cause is not fully understood. It's all hypothesis at this point and strangling the US economy while the rest of the world goes on polluting is a meaningless symbolic gesture intended only to make greenies feel good about themselves while accomplishing nothing of substance. Those "people who warned us" were the ones who forced us off safe clean pollution free nuclear power into a dependence on coal in the first place. The ironies of all ironies...
    16 May, 01:31 PM Reply Like
  • DevilDog85
    , contributor
    Comments (266) | Send Message
     
    If you can't attack the message attack the messenger. LOL...A typical response from a rabid leftists, Nazi, Progressive, Communist group thinkers. By the way, something tells me you have been tea bagged before.
    16 May, 02:27 PM Reply Like
  • Heinz Doofenshmirtz
    , contributor
    Comments (273) | Send Message
     
    That would be Mann-made Climate Change, Bill
    16 May, 02:39 PM Reply Like
  • DevilDog85
    , contributor
    Comments (266) | Send Message
     
    John Cook is an Australian alarmist who a year ago produced a paper purporting to show that 97 per cent of studies supported the "consensus" on man-made global warming. It was eagerly seized on by the left-wing activists who run President Obama's Twitter account, who gleefully tweeted under the name @barackobama "Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous" - with a link to the paper.

     

    But the paper, in fact, showed nothing of the kind. Recently a researcher named Brandon Shollenberger gained access to some of the data used in Cook's paper and found the statistical methodology to be fatally flawed. However, when he raised these points with Cook's employer the University of Queensland he received a stiff lawyer's letter forbidding him from contacting Cook or even making any mention that he had been sent the letter.
    16 May, 02:41 PM Reply Like
  • ephud
    , contributor
    Comments (2458) | Send Message
     
    DevilDog

     

    There are at least 11 posts above yours. Did it ever occur to you that no one can tell who you're responding to with a name or quote?
    16 May, 02:42 PM Reply Like
  • Red Raider
    , contributor
    Comments (223) | Send Message
     
    User,

     

    That is fine if you believe it. US carbon emissions are already going down. We are not the greatest problem. Mr. OB has won the CC debate for any practical purpose. We are shutting down our coal plants about as fast as we can without shutting off the lights!

     

    No need to debate the honesty of the "scientific community". But they are susceptible to commercial considerations...just like politicians and lawyers.

     

    But it won't affect the carbon emissions. Everybody else on the planet is building coal plants to benefit the world economy.....and they will succeed. So enjoy the ice while it lasts!
    17 May, 12:24 AM Reply Like
  • newnnly
    , contributor
    Comments (246) | Send Message
     
    Can we even save the planet any more if the entire world scientific community is right? And are not the scientists who disagree with CC not part of this world scientific community you speak of user 344235? That's the problem with this ongoing debate about CC. No open mindedness on either side. Just give me my way and never mind what you have to say. Just like our government. No compromise. All I know is these kind of large changes in regulations come out of someone's *ss. If it comes out of mine I want it to be effective to help save the planet, not get more votes.
    17 May, 10:06 AM Reply Like
  • newnnly
    , contributor
    Comments (246) | Send Message
     
    Semper Fi DevilDog85

     

    "Something is wrong with you." Funny, my drill instructor told me the same thing back in 79 at P I. And my mommy told me that a few times too. Hell I believed both of them till I almost killed myself drinking. Very emotional topic this CC. Casual remarks not meant to attack are perceived as an affront and the scientific data is not even considered relevant any more. All I know is that we are all in this big a** boat called Earth together and I don't like breathing where I fart. I just want to know the truth because I'm not a scientist.
    17 May, 10:38 AM Reply Like
  • Ford289HiPo
    , contributor
    Comments (528) | Send Message
     
    ""Gotta love a dumb teabagger that believes he has credibility after dropping the Nazi comparison. ""

     

    Just following the example of the douche-baggers when Bush was in office. Thanks for the laugh.
    19 May, 04:28 PM Reply Like
  • blake303
    , contributor
    Comments (78) | Send Message
     
    Two wrongs make a right, apparently.
    19 May, 06:10 PM Reply Like
  • coelacanth10
    , contributor
    Comments (81) | Send Message
     
    For those who are confused about global warming, climate change, or whatever term the politicos care to use at any one moment, please understand that the scientific method plays no part in their conclusions. Science is never "settled" on any one topic, and rigorous nonpolitical investigations must be applied over and over again by many parties to test any hypothesis. The designs of these tests are sometimes quite difficult with the goal to remove as much bias as possible. When one hears about double blind medical studies to test a therapy or drug, the aim is to eliminate anything that would interfere with objectively evaluating the information discovered by the trial. Blue Horshoe is correct
    20 May, 05:28 PM Reply Like
  • coelacanth10
    , contributor
    Comments (81) | Send Message
     
    My understanding of the conclusions of Professor Cook's paper was of 11,000 abstracts studied by his staff at University of Queensland on global warming, around 66% of the abstracts' authors had no opinion on whether global warming was manmade. Of those who had an opinion, 97% believed that humans were part of the problem. This exceedingly weak conclusion does not support much of anything. Professor Cook further refused to release his data to the general public, compounding the problem.
    20 May, 05:37 PM Reply Like
  • billknowsall
    , contributor
    Comments (267) | Send Message
     
    There is no such thing. Period.
    22 May, 10:49 AM Reply Like
  • btomko
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
     
    PVA is NOT a coal Company it is an oil and gas company, coal was spun out years ago
    16 May, 07:10 AM Reply Like
  • smaug6
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
     
    In 15 years so you know this is sure to be implemented.
    16 May, 07:10 AM Reply Like
  • deercreekvols
    , contributor
    Comments (5693) | Send Message
     
    (YZC) is a Chinese company. Unless the White House has the power to shut off China, then China will do what is best for China.

     

    How quickly the Industrial Revolution has been forgotten.
    16 May, 07:41 AM Reply Like
  • Blue Horshoe love Anacot Steel
    , contributor
    Comments (284) | Send Message
     
    it doesn't matter how much carbon is being spewed in china, india, japan and Europe, or how irrelevant this proposal is, if it feels makes liberals feel good about themselves, then that's all that matters.
    16 May, 08:58 AM Reply Like
  • DevilDog85
    , contributor
    Comments (266) | Send Message
     
    I think another issue is how incredibly dense Americans were to let themselves be so thoroughly mislead by Obama and the Democrats ultimate agenda, especially since so much information was available on what was going to happen.
    16 May, 10:38 AM Reply Like
  • Husker Bob
    , contributor
    Comments (333) | Send Message
     
    DevilDog85 - please don't paint all Americans with the same brush. But unfortunately, there is certainly an incredibly dense majority, although not just dense, the word clueless also applies.
    16 May, 12:29 PM Reply Like
  • DevilDog85
    , contributor
    Comments (266) | Send Message
     
    I didn't paint ALL Americans with the same brush. Just those who voted for Obumbles and other radical leftists.
    16 May, 02:28 PM Reply Like
  • newnnly
    , contributor
    Comments (246) | Send Message
     
    Hey DevilDog85- there you go again calling people names. Not that I don't get a good laugh. It's just that words like Obumbles tends to strike fear into the enemy and cause them to run into the hills and hide. We want them to come at us as fast as they can so we can mow them down quickly.

     

    I don't agree with most of what the left has to say but I'm willing to listen and agree with something if it's correct. I would just like to know the truth about this destroying our planet bit. Would'nt it help us to get to the truth faster if we all worked together?
    17 May, 11:04 AM Reply Like
  • DevilDog85
    , contributor
    Comments (266) | Send Message
     
    newnnly,

     

    Obumbes is a clown. I routinely read on SA personal attacks on Bush, Reagan, and the GOP etc. I don't recall you calling them out.

     

    We live in a society where I can call Nixon if I choose "Tricky Dick" or Obama Obumbles. Obumbles is unworthy of respect because he and his party lack virtue. By the way, one of these radical leftists called me a tea bagger. You were silent on that one too.
    17 May, 02:12 PM Reply Like
  • newnnly
    , contributor
    Comments (246) | Send Message
     
    You are right Devil Dog. I should point that guy out too for calling you a tea bagger. But I would like to humbly disagree about our Commander in Chief being a clown. I lean conservative Republican and disagree with much of what this administration does, but even so I admire and respect my President. He is the most powerful man on the face of this planet leading the most powerful and greatest of nations. No Marine. Not a clown. President of the United States of America. But as a person I really don't like the guy at all.
    17 May, 06:37 PM Reply Like
  • JohnBinTN
    , contributor
    Comments (3805) | Send Message
     
    I am the opposite - I think I might like him as a person (by the looks of it, I could probably school him on the basketball court), but I do not care for him as a President.

     

    Putin kinda showed that Obama (and the US in general) is more bark than bite...
    17 May, 06:41 PM Reply Like
  • newnnly
    , contributor
    Comments (246) | Send Message
     
    Don't get me wrong here JohnBinTN. I respect him for the office he holds but don't like him as a President. And I think Michelle could school him on the floor.
    17 May, 06:57 PM Reply Like
  • DevilDog85
    , contributor
    Comments (266) | Send Message
     
    Obumbles is weakening this country. You claim to be conservative but I have never known a conservative who admires a man destroying this country. Something tells me you are not legit, or conservative. A wolf in sheep's clothes. I have no interest in responding to u again.
    18 May, 12:54 AM Reply Like
  • geodan85
    , contributor
    Comments (166) | Send Message
     
    I really believe this White House does whatever it wants and legality of any action be damned, negative press is no worry since most of the media refuses to report on their abuses. It all stems from an arrogant belief of "we know better", which is so far from the truth.

     

    If this latest absurdity is ever realized it will only succeed in raising utility bills and furthering structural unemployment by reducing jobs in the mining as well as oil and gas industries. 2016 can't come soon enough to rid this country of the most incompetent and clueless administration we have ever been forced to endure.
    16 May, 08:57 AM Reply Like
  • coelacanth10
    , contributor
    Comments (81) | Send Message
     
    We need a new leader who can think objectively and act on principles that are good for all Americans, not just political support. So many of Mr. Obama's decisions seem to cater to his party and their success in maintaining their jobs in Washington, rather than the country as a whole. I suspect he's not up to the task, and doesn't really want to work that hard. He also seems the last person to be informed of some tragedy. Have what the Democrats done in the last 6 years advanced the well-being of the country as a whole? Should we reward them this fall and in 2016 for a job well done?
    20 May, 05:51 PM Reply Like
  • spinrbait
    , contributor
    Comments (389) | Send Message
     
    from an investing stand point, just invest in regulated industries. the increases will be passed on the the rate payers and us as investors will be just fine.
    16 May, 08:58 AM Reply Like
  • DevilDog85
    , contributor
    Comments (266) | Send Message
     
    Obama and the Democrats said they would kill the coal industry. Gov. Jerry Brown told Californians that global warming is causing the oceans to rise and LAX will have dissuptions and may have to be moved. LOL. Of course when you freeze a glass full of water and then let it thaw, there isn't more water. The criminals are running the institutions.
    16 May, 09:10 AM Reply Like
  • SteveSzabo
    , contributor
    Comments (32) | Send Message
     
    The issue isn't sea ice its land mass ice melt as in what happening in Greenland. Check out the documentary "Chasing Ice"
    16 May, 09:40 AM Reply Like
  • DevilDog85
    , contributor
    Comments (266) | Send Message
     
    Chasing Ice....is that like GAS LAND? All progressive lies. Get lost.
    16 May, 10:17 AM Reply Like
  • DevilDog85
    , contributor
    Comments (266) | Send Message
     
    You completely ignored what I wrote. I and others call people like you ZEALOTs.
    16 May, 10:22 AM Reply Like
  • Blue Horshoe love Anacot Steel
    , contributor
    Comments (284) | Send Message
     
    Global Warming Scam = Global Enforcement Body = World Government = Tyranny
    16 May, 10:40 AM Reply Like
  • blake303
    , contributor
    Comments (78) | Send Message
     
    "Global Warming Scam = Global Enforcement Body = World Government = Tyranny"

     

    You suck at math
    16 May, 12:46 PM Reply Like
  • JohnBinTN
    , contributor
    Comments (3805) | Send Message
     
    Looks more like logic than math. The terms are too subjective to try to outline a proof, though.
    16 May, 01:31 PM Reply Like
  • newnnly
    , contributor
    Comments (246) | Send Message
     
    I came on this thread to find out if my utility stocks will gain or lose and I find that I'm engaged in a most entertaining discussion. One of the better SA threads I've been on lately.

     

    "Global Warming Scam=Global Enforcement Body=World Government=Tyranny"

     

    "You suck at math."

     

    Yes but combining English, Math and Literary license? PRICELESS!
    17 May, 11:13 AM Reply Like
  • newnnly
    , contributor
    Comments (246) | Send Message
     
    I thought I was missing something JohnBinTN. But if I get the drift we are all being taken to the bank by our leaders and the gun they are using is Global Warming.

     

    The way I look at it; if they are right I'm screwed. If they are wrong I'm screwed more.

     

    Screwed if they are right because the Earth really is heating up. Screwed more if they are wrong because I'll be paying for something I'm not even getting. Hey it's just like sex, it's better to be screwed more.
    17 May, 11:34 AM Reply Like
  • DevilDog85
    , contributor
    Comments (266) | Send Message
     
    The Earth is not heating up. That is a fact.
    17 May, 02:22 PM Reply Like
  • ephud
    , contributor
    Comments (2458) | Send Message
     
    DevilDog

     

    "The Earth is not heating up. That is a fact."

     

    Well that depends on your time scale. Over the last 15 years it doesn't seem to be heating up but over the last few hundred years it has been. Then again heating and cooling have been going on forever. The question is, is there something different about this cycle compared to others? I don't think anyone knows the answer to that question and those who claim too are driven more by politics than science, imo.
    17 May, 02:39 PM Reply Like
  • newnnly
    , contributor
    Comments (246) | Send Message
     
    I sure hope you are right Marine. I too like to think this whole CC thing is a fabrication just to scare conservative folks like us, but I'm not so sure when I hear about the ice melting off the poles of the Earth. Maybe it's just Scientific Shock and Awe but it would be nice if the scientific process would be left alone to find the truth without being molested by either side.
    17 May, 06:20 PM Reply Like
  • JohnBinTN
    , contributor
    Comments (3805) | Send Message
     
    Ebb and flow, I guess, When I grew up in the 70's, the advancing glacial ice sheets were all the rage. Scientists were pretty sure about that, too.
    17 May, 06:34 PM Reply Like
  • DevilDog85
    , contributor
    Comments (266) | Send Message
     
    Newnnly,

     

    Polar ice caps are increasing in size. The warmest period on Earth was during the Middle Ages, and no industrialization. For someone like you who claims to seek knowledge, your opinions are quite leftist. I do believe you are nothing more then a rabid leftist greenie. Go away!
    18 May, 01:04 AM Reply Like
  • ephud
    , contributor
    Comments (2458) | Send Message
     
    DevilDog

     

    "The warmest period on Earth was during the Middle Ages, and no industrialization."

     

    You're not scoring any points this way. The Middle Ages experienced what is called The Little Ice Age. It's been warming ever since.
    18 May, 10:45 AM Reply Like
  • taxman100
    , contributor
    Comments (297) | Send Message
     
    I was just thinking - What we need is to replace our very low cost electricity production industry with one that requires higher electricity bills and massive government subsidies just to survive.

     

    See - I do agree with Obama on at least one thing!
    16 May, 09:45 AM Reply Like
  • edhaven
    , contributor
    Comments (38) | Send Message
     
    Good grief! Just more of this administration's less than intelligent moves. How much carbon has Obama put into the atmosphere in his thousand flights on air force one?? Is there a plane powered by rubber bands?
    16 May, 09:58 AM Reply Like
  • samdehne
    , contributor
    Comments (103) | Send Message
     
    To: Barack Obama - There is a machine called the KDS that can revolutionize America: http://bit.ly/RI9Vu0

     

    PS
    I lost everything when Patriot Coal diabolically declared bankruptcy and wiped
    out all of the citizens' bought and paid for stock.
    That is 1,000% worse than than what WH is trying to do.
    16 May, 10:16 AM Reply Like
  • SteveSzabo
    , contributor
    Comments (32) | Send Message
     
    Coal is not cheap anymore. As it gets deeper in the ground it get more expensive to mine. In some areas of WY 4 1/2 tons of earth needs to excavated to get 1 ton of coal.
    16 May, 11:51 AM Reply Like
  • billknowsall
    , contributor
    Comments (267) | Send Message
     
    In order to make this a more perfect world, obamao needs to regulate YOUR emissions. I suggest that you go back to hand cranking whatever it was you were doing and leave this conversation to the rest of us. Provide data showing how horribly expensive it is to mine coal. My data says otherwise. Power cos are going to generate power from what ever is most advantageous to them. That is, if not mandated to use pinwheels and fairy dust...
    16 May, 12:32 PM Reply Like
  • embryorambo
    , contributor
    Comments (258) | Send Message
     
    I think the administration wants us to stop burning coal and pay more for our energy, so that the rest of the world can continue to burn low cost coal by the gigaton. its all the same pool if you stop peeing in your section and everyone else pees in there's the net result is the same. If climate change as they say is real the tragedy of the commons will insure we all are in the same boat.
    16 May, 10:17 AM Reply Like
  • Always Incredulous
    , contributor
    Comments (204) | Send Message
     
    CLIR (Nasdaq): watch for imminent announcement, will BE the go-to standard and this 15 year time horizon will be met in a fraction of time.
    16 May, 12:15 PM Reply Like
  • Always Incredulous
    , contributor
    Comments (204) | Send Message
     
    I should have said, they have figured out how to increase combustion efficiency while reducing NOX and SOX and CO levels to new lows.

     

    All of the belly-aching above on either side of the global climate change debate will be moot.
    20 May, 08:48 AM Reply Like
  • stilts
    , contributor
    Comments (3) | Send Message
     
    Start the brown outs in Washington !!
    16 May, 12:26 PM Reply Like
  • Ford289HiPo
    , contributor
    Comments (528) | Send Message
     
    ""Start the brown outs in Washington !! ""

     

    I can guarantee that will be one of the last places with a brownout.
    19 May, 04:36 PM Reply Like
  • toomuchgas
    , contributor
    Comments (603) | Send Message
     
    Since when has the Obama admin. worried about laws?
    16 May, 01:23 PM Reply Like
  • DGI_Dan
    , contributor
    Comments (77) | Send Message
     
    People talk about solar and wind being able to power the county, but they forget that sun doesn't shine at night and wind is very intermittent. I am a grid operator for a large power company where we have several large wind farms connected to our grid. When wind stops blowing, that same dirty coal burning plant has to come up. If all greenies get their wish, us will experience lot of power outages anytime there are clouds in sky or wind stops blowing. How will this impact the whatever little industry that is left in USA.
    16 May, 09:49 PM Reply Like
  • Red Raider
    , contributor
    Comments (223) | Send Message
     
    DGI,

     

    I will try to explain...one more time.

     

    Of course you are correct. You noted the most obvious problem, but the actual situation is much worse. The grid must supply electricity on demand, instantly. That means the wind / solar / other units must be covered by conventional units synchronized to the grid, operating at less than full capacity, and able to pick up any change in grid demand (or lost generation capacity) INSTANTLY, as in response to a customer flicking on a light switch. Let's call it spinning reserve.

     

    Units (other than hydro) operating for spinning reserve usually operate at a rather poor efficiency. Of course this adds to the cost of electric generation and increases carbon and other emissions.

     

    Maybe I missed something, I thought the Greens were against poor efficiency and increased emissions.

     

    I am really tired of this green nonsense.
    17 May, 12:55 AM Reply Like
  • Uain53
    , contributor
    Comments (1492) | Send Message
     
    "It turns out that scientists can fall victim to tribalism just like any other humans..."

     

    And climate scientists would like a new car, a nice house and a vacation at the seashore with the family too.

     

    Unfortunately, they need to toe that Olde Tyme Global Warming religion to get the grants and funding and tenure they need to provide such.
    17 May, 01:28 AM Reply Like
  • whiff
    , contributor
    Comments (699) | Send Message
     
    doesn't he have anything better to do ?
    17 May, 07:12 AM Reply Like
  • Tricoman
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
     
    Destroying America and democrats are more loyal to a party than the country, so with less energy dems get less...let's see how the hypocritical traitors behave! Bet they cry for AC!...kind of like woman's rights, talk a good game and then screw the ladies that work for them! Just don't understand how stupid people can be!
    17 May, 10:05 AM Reply Like
  • big jay McKay
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
     
    Man you hit the nail on the head. This is the new religion of the democrat's. Their faith lies in an unregulated China.
    17 May, 10:11 AM Reply Like
  • SteveSzabo
    , contributor
    Comments (32) | Send Message
     
    Any Comments?
    http://bit.ly/1sLBpuf
    19 May, 01:03 PM Reply Like
  • Blue Horshoe love Anacot Steel
    , contributor
    Comments (284) | Send Message
     
    steveszabo, I also look forward to the day when the world runs on rainbows and pixie dust. In the real world, coal keeps the lights on for the poorest people of the world and prevents the world's most vulnerable from death and starvation (through access to refrigeration, clean water, etc.). If you really want to impress us why don't you tell us which billionaires are funding "cleanenergyaction.org"?
    19 May, 02:34 PM Reply Like
  • SteveSzabo
    , contributor
    Comments (32) | Send Message
     
    Not trying to impress anyone, and I'm not sure who does the major funding for CEA, but I know its not billionares.
    19 May, 03:53 PM Reply Like
  • SteveSzabo
    , contributor
    Comments (32) | Send Message
     
    Blue - I agree that coal has been a valuable resource, and in fact I burnt coal from 1975 - 1978 which supplied 90% of the heat for my home. But going forward I believe coal will be much more expensive. The G&T that supplies us power shows in their charts that coal costs will over double from 2012 to 2022. They show $2.02 in 2012 and $4.06 / million btu's. Yes this is an estimate based on estimates form the mining folks.
    19 May, 04:13 PM Reply Like
  • ephud
    , contributor
    Comments (2458) | Send Message
     
    SteveSzabo

     

    Before you start singing the praises of coal, you might try counting the dead. There are the 10s of thousands who die every year from disease related to coal generated air pollution. Then there are the uncountable deaths from the radioactive Uranium and Thorium dumped into the atmosphere in addition to the exhaust pollution. Add in the miners who have died over the years from mining related lung disease and the ground water contamination from the rain water leaching into the ground from the slag heaps.

     

    Ain't Coal great?
    19 May, 04:31 PM Reply Like
  • SteveSzabo
    , contributor
    Comments (32) | Send Message
     
    I agree I want to get off coal asap
    19 May, 04:40 PM Reply Like
  • Blue Horshoe love Anacot Steel
    , contributor
    Comments (284) | Send Message
     
    it is a fact that coal, like all other natural resources (oil, nat gas, iron ore, copper) becomes more expensive to extract over time. the low-hanging fruit is always picked first. the coal companies don't dispute this.

     

    but the article you reference is written by activists in order to make non-fossil fuel energy appear more cost-efficient in comparison. the founder of the organization has been hawking this idea for years writing in 2009 that actual economically recoverable coal reserves are overstated by ten-fold. yeah, that's right TEN-FOLD. Does that really sound reasonable?

     

    Much of these arguments are lies built on top of other lies. Bottom line is like I said before. Coal, while not perfect, can be used to provide cheap, reliable, clean (modern coal plants are surprising clean) energy that lets poor people in this country and around the world eat, drink, have access to medical care, and just keep the lights on. It is estimated that 1.8 billion people in the world do not have access to electrical power. Imagine for a second not having a refrigerator or access to clean water?

     

    It is only elitists that want to see the world population shrink drastically and don't care what happens to the undesirables in poor countries that keep pushing this nonsense. Scientists are coming out in increasing numbers against this scam of AGW.

     

    Stay curious and keep an open mind.
    19 May, 05:04 PM Reply Like
  • SteveSzabo
    , contributor
    Comments (32) | Send Message
     
    More on economically recoverable coal.

     

    http://bit.ly/1sLD8jk
    19 May, 01:11 PM Reply Like
  • havasuscott
    , contributor
    Comments (3) | Send Message
     
    Just like in the past when all the scientist said the world was flat it will come to show that there is more to changing the climate and what we are doing and if it really was as Dyras what our president and those in power say it is why China India other Asian countries building coal-fired power plants and Germany is also building Spain and Germany have walked away from their solar program of subsidizing it and also Australia and you prime minister has said he does not believe the climate change is man-made
    19 May, 06:47 PM Reply Like
  • Uain53
    , contributor
    Comments (1492) | Send Message
     
    "White House mulls massive reduction in power emissions"

     

    I just want to feel safe again....

     

    Wait a minute!
    A massive reduction in power ... emissions..... means that the regime will go dark?
    errr... off the grid?
    20 May, 09:23 PM Reply Like
  • Uain53
    , contributor
    Comments (1492) | Send Message
     
    "Before you start singing the praises of coal, you might try counting the dead. "

     

    Yeah, you might want to consider what happens when our electricity is totally dependent on unreliable "renewables"?

     

    Here is a thought experiment ......
    If Carbon based energy is radically changing the environment..... WHY do you want to rapidly change our power generation systems to be........ DEPENDENT on the ....radically..... changing environment?
    20 May, 09:29 PM Reply Like
  • ephud
    , contributor
    Comments (2458) | Send Message
     
    Uain53

     

    "Yeah, you might want to consider what happens when our electricity is totally dependent on unreliable "renewables"? "

     

    I wouldn't want that and I don't know of anyone who is advocating that. Alternatives would only act as supplements, not the base load.

     

    What we really need is massive building of safe, clean, inexhaustible nuclear plants. Environmentalists killed millions by forcing us to rely on coal with their opposition to nuclear power.
    20 May, 10:33 PM Reply Like
  • Uain53
    , contributor
    Comments (1492) | Send Message
     
    Sorry Elmer,

     

    My speed reading isn't what it used to be...... I missed the context provided in your prior comments.

     

    By the way, I saw some articles awhile back about making smaller sized Nuclear plants. Like for a small city, instead of the super sized ones. Apparently the design is based on the power plants in Subs and Aircraft Carriers.
    21 May, 11:31 PM Reply Like
  • benitus
    , contributor
    Comments (1960) | Send Message
     
    It depends what stock you're following because some of the other newsfeed are rather intelligent. Just ignore posts that defy logic. Have a wonderful day.
    22 Jun, 01:42 PM Reply Like
  • Justin Hohn
    , contributor
    Comments (632) | Send Message
     
    The War on Coal by executive fiat.

     

    I would much prefer the WH limit the more damaging emissions facing this country, particularly those damaging emissions from Washington:
    -- bad law
    -- malfeasance
    -- wrongheaded policy
    -- misguided regulation
    23 Jun, 01:38 PM Reply Like
  • taxman100
    , contributor
    Comments (297) | Send Message
     
    War on coal? War on economic independence of the individual vs. dependency on the state via crony capitalism for business, and direct subsidizing of the increasingly large underclass for the majority of the subjects of the State.

     

    Bread and circus still works today.
    23 Jun, 03:49 PM Reply Like
  • Blue Horshoe love Anacot Steel
    , contributor
    Comments (284) | Send Message
     
    options, unfortunately anything coal related brings out all the global warming loons and the rest of us that are trying to have adult conversations about investing get preached to by the fanatics of the religion of environmentalism. ignore them if you can. clearly, I can't
    23 Jun, 11:19 PM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Tools
Find the right ETFs for your portfolio:
Seeking Alpha's new ETF Hub
ETF Investment Guide:
Table of Contents | One Page Summary
Read about different ETF Asset Classes:
ETF Selector